Medical definition is not the sole definition, however. Or even necessarily the most common. Or the definition used for legal purposes.

The bane of language is that there's a bunch of different groups all using the same word differently.

The whole problem with legal definitions is that they tend to use circular reasoning. The 1961 treaty you mentioned defined narcotics to be those drugs they wanted to control, because it's easy to rationalize the control of narcotics. See Webster's definition part b;

narcotic (noun)1a : a drug (such as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions

b : a drug (such as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically (see physiological) addictive and narcotic or not

I prefer the medical definition, simply because it's actually accurate (out of necessity).

You may prefer the medical definition (I like precise definitions myself). But you can't ignore other definitions simply because they displease you. They're out there. They're real. You don't get to ignore them by shouting them down.

(continuing thought) Recall that even the medical definition isn't somehow a purer expression of the original intent of the word Narcotic. It was likewise co-opted for somewhat arbitrary reasons to define an explicit class of drug, not because it's what the original word meant. In the original strict definition some strains of marijuana would have very much applied (while others wouldn't) as a psychoative compound with sleep inducing properties. And some opiods would not have.

Sorry, not trying to shout anyone down, just trying to define the terms. "Narcotic" has a lot of baggage with it. That's why I prefer opiate to that term anyway...

I live my life with opiates. Well, my daughter does. They're the only thing keeping her able to function after a medical nightmare going back several years. And they are definitely narcotic, sleepiness is always a side effect depending on dosage - a delicate balancing act for her.

And yes, marijuana can make you lethargic. But it works so differently, and because of that it's non-addictive (except as previously noted). It really shouldn't be lumped in with the physically addictive drugs like cocaine and opiates. I think it's just the fact that the legal classification is "for our own good" that bothers me the most!

And I'm willing to drop it at this point. Thanks for the discussion, though -- it's been interesting!

This is like the inverse of a story I heard in a comedy routine years ago. The comedian said his parents wanted to try marijuana. So he and a buddy brought some over and smoked with them. Then his buddy wanted to go do something else and he said "No! You don't get senior citizens high and then ditch them!"